Apologetics: witnessing to atheists

[rewriter]

Well, just + right = good enough for me.

I nearly died from COVID in 2020, because the Biden administration would not allow therapeutics,
and I did not want an experimental vax, until we found a doctor who prescribed ivermectin,
which stabilized me, and mono-clonal antibodies, which cured me by the next day.

I experienced being barely able to walk to the bathroom and back to the bed at night or the chair during the day,
having no appetite with food being tasteless so I lost 20 pounds, and lethargy to the point of passing out, then
piercing pain in my eyes by the time I got the antibodies.

The month after I recovered I was able to take care of my dad as he died from COVID with no fear of getting it again
because I had natural immunity by then.

I have a busy day, but I will get back to you. Glad you escaped COVID, sorry that your father did not. But keep up on the vaccinations, I knew one man who caught COVID 3 or 4 times over five years before he died of other causes.

 

[GWH]

I have a busy day, but I will get back to you. Glad you escaped COVID, sorry that your father did not. But keep up on the vaccinations, I knew one man who caught COVID 3 or 4 times over five years before he died of other causes.

Thanks. My dad was 95 and ready to go because he had immunity from ultimate death,
so his rather sudden passing after a long and healthy life actually was a blessing,
especially because he lived seven hours away. He lived alone but in a small town,
so he had more friends than I do living in a large town!

I never was vaxxed, and I think my immunity due to antibodies will be sufficient,
because the subsequent strains seem less virulent. I think I might have caught a second version
after a year or two, but it was so mild that I got over it with no problem in about a week.
TTYL

 

[rewriter]

Thanks. My dad was 95 and ready to go because he had immunity from ultimate death,
so his rather sudden passing after a long and healthy life actually was a blessing,
especially because he lived seven hours away. He lived alone but in a small town,
so he had more friends than I do living in a large town!

I never was vaxxed, and I think my immunity due to antibodies will be sufficient,
because the subsequent strains seem less virulent. I think I might have caught a second version
after a year or two, but it was so mild that I got over it with no problem in about a week.
TTYL

Glad to hear that you seem to have immunity, but back to the general discussion, part of what I will be saying is what I will be working on in my second book. Why I am so foolish as to even think about a second book shows how little I learn.

But anyway, when we read some passages, we instinctively add words and that dictates how we understand the passages. In Genesis 2:17 when we read that God told Adam not to eat of the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, we hear God issuing a commandment. I had a professor one time who advised our class not to speed in a certain small village on the other side of the city and if we did, we would surely get a speeding ticket. The professor had no power to issue speeding tickets, but the village was a known speed trap, so he was giving us a warning. Was God telling Adam that if he ate of the tree in defiance of what He had said that He would exact vengeance or was He warning Adam against a problem that He could not prevent without ruining the purpose of creation. Was it "I will not tolerate defiance" or was it "if you do I cannot stop the consequences", and how does that change the nature of Sin.

A related problem comes with the 10 Commandments. The Hebrew allows for these to be declarative statements, statements of truth, not imperative, orders. Declarative could imply "when you have it right this is how you will behave" as opposed to the way they often get understood of "to get it right this is how you must behave".

God's righteousness means that God does the right things, quite plausibly trying to teach us how to live righteously. God's justice implies punishment for not doing the right thing. Righteousness, God will not stop the necessary consequences but will be there to help whenever we turn to Him. Justice, God will inflict the consequences for wrongful behavior. In both cases, the consequences arrive, but in one we blame God for them rather than ourselves. A drinking alcoholic or drug using drug addict finds lots of reasons why they are not to blame for their behavior, a recovering person blames themselves.

Either way, God provides a scapegoat to take the blame for our misbehavior, but in one case it is to compensate His demands, in the other it is because we will not accept our blame. The second is a very loving approach, not bailing us out so that we do not learn why to avoid the wrong behavior but rather requires us to learn better, the first allows us to pass the blame off onto another and avoid learning.

 

[GWH]

Glad to hear that you seem to have immunity, but back to the general discussion, part of what I will be saying is what I will be working on in my second book. Why I am so foolish as to even think about a second book shows how little I learn.

But anyway, when we read some passages, we instinctively add words and that dictates how we understand the passages. In Genesis 2:17 when we read that God told Adam not to eat of the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, we hear God issuing a commandment. I had a professor one time who advised our class not to speed in a certain small village on the other side of the city and if we did, we would surely get a speeding ticket. The professor had no power to issue speeding tickets, but the village was a known speed trap, so he was giving us a warning. Was God telling Adam that if he ate of the tree in defiance of what He had said that He would exact vengeance or was He warning Adam against a problem that He could not prevent without ruining the purpose of creation. Was it "I will not tolerate defiance" or was it "if you do I cannot stop the consequences", and how does that change the nature of Sin.

A related problem comes with the 10 Commandments. The Hebrew allows for these to be declarative statements, statements of truth, not imperative, orders. Declarative could imply "when you have it right this is how you will behave" as opposed to the way they often get understood of "to get it right this is how you must behave".

God's righteousness means that God does the right things, quite plausibly trying to teach us how to live righteously. God's justice implies punishment for not doing the right thing. Righteousness, God will not stop the necessary consequences but will be there to help whenever we turn to Him. Justice, God will inflict the consequences for wrongful behavior. In both cases, the consequences arrive, but in one we blame God for them rather than ourselves. A drinking alcoholic or drug using drug addict finds lots of reasons why they are not to blame for their behavior, a recovering person blames themselves.

Either way, God provides a scapegoat to take the blame for our misbehavior, but in one case it is to compensate His demands, in the other it is because we will not accept our blame. The second is a very loving approach, not bailing us out so that we do not learn why to avoid the wrong behavior but rather requires us to learn better, the first allows us to pass the blame off onto another and avoid learning.

Here is what your comments prompted in a sort of word-association way combined with constructive suggestions:

1. You say we add words but do not provide an example.
2. "Do not eat..." is an imperative statement aka a command.
3. Mention of the professor's warning is not necessary.
4. Your mention of God's warning was a question that added words to the passage. (Was that intended to be the example?)
5. God tolerates defiance until the Judgment, when just consequences are experienced aka hell.
6. Not sure the "10 Declarations" would fly.
7. The Judge should not be blamed but rather praised for enforcing just consequences.
8. A sinking sinner makes excuses for wrong behavior like Adam did, but a recovering Christian confesses sins.
9. God provided Messiah/Himself to atone for sins, but it is not effectual for those who reject their own guilt.
10. The loving approach is the right Way aka tough love.

Hope this helps with rewriting/amending a rough draft.
I frequently rewrite something due to feeback, most recently adding items to the Key OT Teachings thread.

 

[rewriter]

Here is what your comments prompted in a sort of word-association way combined with constructive suggestions:

1. You say we add words but do not provide an example.
2. "Do not eat..." is an imperative statement aka a command.
3. Mention of the professor's warning is not necessary.
4. Your mention of God's warning was a question that added words to the passage. (Was that intended to be the example?)
5. God tolerates defiance until the Judgment, when just consequences are experienced aka hell.
6. Not sure the "10 Declarations" would fly.
7. The Judge should not be blamed but rather praised for enforcing just consequences.
8. A sinking sinner makes excuses for wrong behavior like Adam did, but a recovering Christian confesses sins.
9. God provided Messiah/Himself to atone for sins, but it is not effectual for those who reject their own guilt.
10. The loving approach is the right Way aka tough love.

Hope this helps with rewriting/amending a rough draft.
I frequently rewrite something due to feeback, most recently adding items to the Key OT Teachings thread.

Was "do not eat" an imperative due to God's will or was it an imperative of warning? And we do unconsciously add words. Without adding in additional context, "do not eat" could be a direct order or a stern warning. Suppose I tell a child not to pock their finger into that hole in the ground where bees are flying in and out, yes, it is a command, but to what purpose, what do I lose if it is not obeyed? It actually functions far more as a warning than as a command. A child will likely not recognize or understand the consequences of sticking their finger in the hole until it is too late, Adam and Eve did not recognize or understand the consequences of eating the fruit until it was too late. But God's actions after the fact strongly suggest that He was trying to mitigate the consequences as best he could, not punish them.

And what is the purpose for the judgment, is it to administer punishment or to evaluate how well the lesson has been learned. Failure to learn means that you continue to suffer the logical consequences, while learning allows one to finally be free from them, God can heal and know that the problem will not reoccur.

An active alcoholic will also express sorrow and contrition over their actions when they were drunk, right before they go out drinking again. We as sinners confess our sins, and then continue sinning, often just ignoring certain specific sinful actions in order to deny that we remain in a state of sin. For an alcoholic that might well be, drinking whiskey got me in a lot of trouble, I will avoid whiskey, but not rum, gin wine or beer. I know enough alcoholics to know that logic can apply. One of my most beloved alcoholics was a family friend who I grew up calling "Uncle *****". I was shocked one time when talking to him and he said that he had just celebrated 15 years of sobriety, and I told him that I thought it should be at least 30 if not more. He said I was right, but that about 15 years previously he had had a very bad weekend.

Thank you for the feedback. And I fully agree with your last two points.

 

[GWH]

Was "do not eat" an imperative due to God's will or was it an imperative of warning? And we do unconsciously add words. Without adding in additional context, "do not eat" could be a direct order or a stern warning. Suppose I tell a child not to pock their finger into that hole in the ground where bees are flying in and out, yes, it is a command, but to what purpose, what do I lose if it is not obeyed? It actually functions far more as a warning than as a command. A child will likely not recognize or understand the consequences of sticking their finger in the hole until it is too late, Adam and Eve did not recognize or understand the consequences of eating the fruit until it was too late. But God's actions after the fact strongly suggest that He was trying to mitigate the consequences as best he could, not punish them.

And what is the purpose for the judgment, is it to administer punishment or to evaluate how well the lesson has been learned. Failure to learn means that you continue to suffer the logical consequences, while learning allows one to finally be free from them, God can heal and know that the problem will not reoccur.

An active alcoholic will also express sorrow and contrition over their actions when they were drunk, right before they go out drinking again. We as sinners confess our sins, and then continue sinning, often just ignoring certain specific sinful actions in order to deny that we remain in a state of sin. For an alcoholic that might well be, drinking whiskey got me in a lot of trouble, I will avoid whiskey, but not rum, gin wine or beer. I know enough alcoholics to know that logic can apply. One of my most beloved alcoholics was a family friend who I grew up calling "Uncle *****". I was shocked one time when talking to him and he said that he had just celebrated 15 years of sobriety, and I told him that I thought it should be at least 30 if not more. He said I was right, but that about 15 years previously he had had a very bad weekend.

Thank you for the feedback. And I fully agree with your last two points.

"Do not eat" is the command/imperative; "if you do you will die" is the warning--both due to God's will.
Hopefully A&E learned their lesson, as well as Cain later, but we are not told whether they did or did not.

Yes, God intends for the bad consequences of sin on earth to teach folks not to repeat their moral errors,
although the purpose in hell is to attain justice, probably along the lines of reaping what was sown and eye for eye.

God knows how to allow/judge justly for addictions as well as for poor parenting.

Glad you like the feedback. Feel free to post more of your book for constructive comments either here or on your thread.

 

[rewriter]

"Do not eat" is the command/imperative; "if you do you will die" is the warning--both due to God's will.
Hopefully A&E learned their lesson, as well as Cain later, but we are not told whether they did or did not.

Yes, God intends for the bad consequences of sin on earth to teach folks not to repeat their moral errors,
although the purpose in hell is to attain justice, probably along the lines of reaping what was sown and eye for eye.

God knows how to allow/judge justly for addictions as well as for poor parenting.

Glad you like the feedback. Feel free to post more of your book for constructive comments either here or on your thread.

Out of curiosity, have you read about Corbulo yet? He was appointed by Nero to be governor over at least two Roman provinces at once, possibly three, with headquarters in Ephesus, he had the only detachment of praetorian guards outside of Rome, received one legion from the Rhine frontier, he claimed a second from Syria, although the one he received was out of shape and needed a complete reequipping and training, as well as permission to raise two brand new legions. Thus, through the mid-50's he was equipping many soldiers with full Roman armor and weapons in the general area of Ephesus and training them to stand firm against a very deadly enemy that used flaming and poisoned arrows. This was an enemy that had the support of another empire that had fought with Rome. Rome had attacked the other empire with roughly 40-45,000 Roman soldiers, plus allied kings and their forces, when they encountered roughly 11,000 enemy. The allied kings suddenly remembered urgent tasks at home and departed before any conflict, but the Romans stood and fought. Two days later, the survivors made it back to Syria and within a year, Syria and the general Roman middle east was invaded, an event that lasted for the next 15 years, about 8 years later, Augustus managed to negotiate the return of the lost Roman Eagles.

 

[GWH]

Out of curiosity, have you read about Corbulo yet? He was appointed by Nero to be governor over at least two Roman provinces at once, possibly three, with headquarters in Ephesus, he had the only detachment of praetorian guards outside of Rome, received one legion from the Rhine frontier, he claimed a second from Syria, although the one he received was out of shape and needed a complete reequipping and training, as well as permission to raise two brand new legions. Thus, through the mid-50's he was equipping many soldiers with full Roman armor and weapons in the general area of Ephesus and training them to stand firm against a very deadly enemy that used flaming and poisoned arrows. This was an enemy that had the support of another empire that had fought with Rome. Rome had attacked the other empire with roughly 40-45,000 Roman soldiers, plus allied kings and their forces, when they encountered roughly 11,000 enemy. The allied kings suddenly remembered urgent tasks at home and departed before any conflict, but the Romans stood and fought. Two days later, the survivors made it back to Syria and within a year, Syria and the general Roman middle east was invaded, an event that lasted for the next 15 years, about 8 years later, Augustus managed to negotiate the return of the lost Roman Eagles.

This is what AI said:

• Consul (AD 39): He rose to prominence under Emperor Caligula, who trusted him enough to leave him as a leading representative in Rome while the emperor handled a frontier conspiracy. [1]
• Governor of Lower Germany (AD 47): He subdued the Frisii tribe and successfully campaigned against the Chauci. When Emperor Claudius ordered him back behind the Rhine river, Corbulo famously kept his troops disciplined by having them build the Fossa Corbulonis (Corbulo's Canal), a major engineering feat that connected the Rhine and Meuse rivers. [1, 2]
• Governor of Asia (AD 52/53): He served as the civil governor of this exceptionally wealthy province in modern-day Turkey. [1]
• Governor of Cappadocia, Galatia, and Syria (AD 54–66): Sent East by Emperor Nero to resolve the volatile Armenian crisis, Corbulo thoroughly reorganized the local legions. He launched brilliant campaigns, captured major Armenian strongholds, and secured a lasting peace treaty with the formidable Parthian Empire. To manage the conflict, he was eventually granted maius imperium—supreme command over all Roman forces in the region. [1, 2, 3]

Seems like a very competent person. Too bad he was not emperor instead of Nero.

 

[stephencritchlow]

So when you have never seen something. It can always exist. Yeah im with you.

 

[rewriter]

This is what AI said:

• Consul (AD 39): He rose to prominence under Emperor Caligula, who trusted him enough to leave him as a leading representative in Rome while the emperor handled a frontier conspiracy. [1]
• Governor of Lower Germany (AD 47): He subdued the Frisii tribe and successfully campaigned against the Chauci. When Emperor Claudius ordered him back behind the Rhine river, Corbulo famously kept his troops disciplined by having them build the Fossa Corbulonis (Corbulo's Canal), a major engineering feat that connected the Rhine and Meuse rivers. [1, 2]
• Governor of Asia (AD 52/53): He served as the civil governor of this exceptionally wealthy province in modern-day Turkey. [1]
• Governor of Cappadocia, Galatia, and Syria (AD 54–66): Sent East by Emperor Nero to resolve the volatile Armenian crisis, Corbulo thoroughly reorganized the local legions. He launched brilliant campaigns, captured major Armenian strongholds, and secured a lasting peace treaty with the formidable Parthian Empire. To manage the conflict, he was eventually granted maius imperium—supreme command over all Roman forces in the region. [1, 2, 3]

Seems like a very competent person. Too bad he was not emperor instead of Nero.

The period I find most interesting is 54-66, between 55 and early 58 he was equipping large numbers of soldiers, giving them armor and weapons and ordering them to stand firm against an enemy that used flaming arrows.. In 64, just about 3 weeks before the Great Fire in Rome, for which the Christians were blamed by Nero, a peace treaty was signed with Armenia.

 

[LTL]

So when you have never seen something. It can always exist. Yeah im with you.

I have never seen purple rain. Of which scientist theorize occurs on Jupiter resulting from certain chemical combinations. The purple rain on earth simply results from light refraction through the rain drops.

Nevertheless, purple rain does exist because it is real. Little green men from Mars do not exist but only in the imagination or movies, etc. But they are not real as being alive and walking on Mars.

 

[stephencritchlow]

I was being polite. I know energy is never lost. Displaced. I dont fear death. Not because I think there's an amazing heaven. Because I think its another chapter in an exciting journey of existence

 

[stephencritchlow]

Whats an apologetic? Someone that dosent beleive in what you do but apologises.

Like accidently bumping into someone and apologising?

So what is a fundamentalist christian? Someone who beleives who ever dosent agree is a heretic and going to burn in hell.


Sounds rather Islamic.

Your all nuts.

Be cool.. live amd let live. We dont have to agree.

 

[GWH]

The period I find most interesting is 54-66, between 55 and early 58 he was equipping large numbers of soldiers, giving them armor and weapons and ordering them to stand firm against an enemy that used flaming arrows.. In 64, just about 3 weeks before the Great Fire in Rome, for which the Christians were blamed by Nero, a peace treaty was signed with Armenia.

And today Armenia is overwhelmingly Christian, with over 96% of the population identifying as Christian (mostly the Armenian Apostolic Church) per Google. According to tradition, the first Christians to evangelize in Armenia were the apostles Saint Thaddeus and Saint Bartholomew in the first century AD. Saint Thaddeus arrived in Armenia around 43 AD to preach the Gospel and converted local figures, including Princess Sandukht, before he was martyred. He is remembered as one of the "First Illuminators" of the country. Saint Bartholomew: Arrived around 66 AD to continue the missionary work in other regions of Armenia and was also martyred there. Armenia became the first country in the world to formally adopt Christianity as its state religion in 301 AD.

Interesting.

 

[GWH]

I was being polite. I know energy is never lost. Displaced. I dont fear death. Not because I think there's an amazing heaven. Because I think its another chapter in an exciting journey of existence

Seems schizo to divorce amazing from exciting.

Apologetics refers to reasons to believe in God and the Gospel (cf. 1Pet. 3:15).

 

[LTL]

I was being polite. I know energy is never lost. Displaced. I dont fear death. Not because I think there's an amazing heaven. Because I think its another chapter in an exciting journey of existence

No need to be polite here. We all are in the game of trying to understand scripture better. What is most important to you with regard to salvation, or death, or what ever? You are among friends. And we do end up in a tiff here or there. But this is the men's club. For women and children the conversations change to be more compassionate. But for GWH just tell him what you think. Right G?

 

[LTL]

Whats an apologetic? Someone that dosent beleive in what you do but apologises.

Like accidently bumping into someone and apologising?

So what is a fundamentalist christian? Someone who beleives who ever dosent agree is a heretic and going to burn in hell.


Sounds rather Islamic.

Your all nuts.

Be cool.. live amd let live. We dont have to agree.

S,
we were just warming up. What denomination do you lean towards?

My understanding of Fundamentalist Christian is back to the basics. Like Fundamentalist Mormon (FLDS) with long dresses and never cutting their hair but placing it in buns like in the 1800's, etc.

But the question is, What era are they basing their fundamentalism from. And then there are the reformed as in the reformation with Martin Luther and the other reformers after him. So the fundamentalism could be based from one of those theologies.

I think it is better to take in as much information as you can and then sort it out. And if there is a denomination that fits then grow in that doctrine until it no longer fits and move forward.

The key is to strengthen you testimony in Jesus Christ.

 

[GWH]

No need to be polite here. We all are in the game of trying to understand scripture better. What is most important to you with regard to salvation, or death, or what ever? You are among friends. And we do end up in a tiff here or there. But this is the men's club. For women and children the conversations change to be more compassionate. But for GWH just tell him what you think. Right G?

Yes, I appreciate honesty combined with love, which equals loving reproof (per Eph. 4:15),
and I try to practice what I advocate, indicated by .

 

[GWH]

S,
we were just warming up. What denomination do you lean towards?

My understanding of Fundamentalist Christian is back to the basics. Like Fundamentalist Mormon (FLDS) with long dresses and never cutting their hair but placing it in buns like in the 1800's, etc.

But the question is, What era are they basing their fundamentalism from. And then there are the reformed as in the reformation with Martin Luther and the other reformers after him. So the fundamentalism could be based from one of those theologies.

I think it is better to take in as much information as you can and then sort it out. And if there is a denomination that fits then grow in that doctrine until it no longer fits and move forward.

The key is to strengthen you testimony in Jesus Christ.

Yes, and the best denomination is the Truthseekers (Mat. 7:7, 2Thes. 2:10, 1Tim. 2:3-4).

 

[LTL]

Yes, I appreciate honesty combined with love, which equals loving reproof (per Eph. 4:15),
and I try to practice what I advocate, indicated by .

G,
you have always demonstrated a good and kind nature. Thank you.